list_team_iterationsList sprint iterations for a team in Azure DevOps, filtered by current, past, or future timeframe. Use this to retrieve iteration details for planning and tracking.
List current, past, future, or all sprint iterations for a team.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| team | No | Team name or ID. Omit to use the project's default team context. | |
| project | No | ||
| timeframe | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It only says 'List', implying a read operation, but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, nor does it describe the return format, pagination, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool without annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, clear sentence with the verb and scope front-loaded. No unnecessary words; efficient and easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context. It does not mention default behavior when timeframe is omitted, what 'all' means, or the structure of the returned list. It is insufficient for an agent to call it correctly in all scenarios.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 33% (team has a description, but project and timeframe do not). The description adds the concept of 'all' which is not in the enum, but does not explain how to achieve it (likely by omitting timeframe) or clarify the semantics of project and timeframe. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'sprint iterations for a team', and specifies the filter options (current, past, future, all). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_iteration_work_items, which lists work items within an iteration.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by stating what it lists, but does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it note that 'all' is achieved by omitting timeframe. No alternative tools are named, though no direct sibling exists.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.